If the only way to "shape and nourish" the planet is via some sort of violent geological upheaval or some other condition potentially harmful to life[1], why won't god at least ensure the safety of those in the affected area before he begins? A benevolent god would not cause such random suffering, one would think. Babies killed by natural disasters = proof that a loving god who wants what is best does not exist, as far as I'm concerned.

What is best for us is to learn how to live in these environments. To make sure we all can afford weather proof homes.

Are you saying god lovingly causes natural disasters in order to force us to come up with ways to protect ourselves from them because it is in our best interest to protect ourselves from natural disasters? This is circular reasoning at its most insipid, JB. God causes disasters to teach us how to live with disasters? You could use this rationale to explain away the existence of virtually anything harmful.

You do realize that if there were no disasters in the first place we wouldn't have to "learn to live" with them at all, don't you? Imagine the countless lives and dollars in property damage that would be saved. Which of these scenarios do you think would be more likely under the auspices of a truly benevolent creator?

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

I love this topic, junebug. Thanks for giving us another chance to talk about it! You don't have to understand evolution to benefit from it every day. If you have ever had a flu shot or a blood transfusion or were tested for allergies, or have eaten corn, or had a vaccination, you have benefited from the theory of evolution. Police solve crimes using DNA--that is based on the theory of evolution.

The basics of evolution are not that hard. All life came from a common ancestor, and the closer species are to each other, the more characteristics they share. You see it all around you-- most kids look kind of like their parents, closely related species can have offspring (lions and tigers are both a type of cat, and can have offspring--ligers!) while species that are very far apart cannot (dogs and cats, or birds and snakes, can never have offspring).

Humans, gorillas and chimps are all primates who share a common lemur-like ancestor. The three are too distantly related to have offspring, but are close enough to have similar characteristics in appearance and social organization-- and even to share diseases.

All of that supports the theory of evolution. If distantly related species like cats and lizards could have offspring, that would mean the theory was false. If kids routinely looked nothing like their parents, that would mean the theory was false. Imagine how strange it would be if two dachshunds mated and produced a litter of poodles, black labs and collies. There would be no way to breed animals with any kind of certainty.

It is a mistake to think that an individual animal or plant or insect "decides" to evolve. It is not about individual choice. Otherwise humans would have "decided" to evolve wings so we could fly. It is about what makes it possible for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce and pass on its characteristics to its offspring.

And it is not always about being the meanest, fastest, biggest or smartest. Plants evolve to resist pesticides, repel insects, survive drought or cold. Some animals are not fast or strong, but they taste bad, or look like they might taste bad. Turtles are not fast, but they have evolved hard shells to protect themselves. Lots of weak animals are small so they can burrow and hide from predators. One bee can't survive very well alone, but in groups they do very well. Humans have no protective claws or fur, but have big brains to invent tools and make clothes. Whales are mammals evolved from land animals and now can live in water. We know this because, unlike fish, whales still have foot bones, give birth to live young and nurse them with milk.

The discovery of genes reinforced the theory of evolution by showing exactly how similarities pass from parent to offspring. Genetics is about as much proof as science needs that evolution is true. Anytime a person says that "x runs in my family", or looks for a certain breed of dog that is good with children, they are accepting that genetics is real, and they are also accepting the theory of evolution.

These are scientific facts and have nothing to do with "denying a creator". No creator has been detected by science--yet. If there is one, it is very good at hiding from people, even those desperately looking, for thousands of years.

You sound very intelligent here Median but there are flaws in your argument as well. I should be well schooled in evolution by now participating on this forum with all the experts on the subject. You buy right into it because you don't want there to be a God or a Creator. I do.

"Buy right into it" eh? Kinda like "buying right into" the theory of gravity or "buying right into" the germ theory of decease? Whether or not you WANT there to be some "creator god mind thing" behind the universe has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true, and what you've just demonstrated is called WISHFUL THINKING. "I want there to be Santa Claus. So I'll ignore all counter evidence and make irrational arguments and rationalizations to fit my assumption."

This is another logical fallacy (called a contradiction). If you "know to be so" the fact (yes I did say FACT) of evolution then you wouldn't need to question it (just like you don't need to question the germ theory of decease or gravity). What you are questioning is FACT vs your FEELING (as you indicated in your prior post). I'm sorry but saying, "I FEEL there's a God" isn't a valid argument that there is one. Feelings are often extremely mistaken and should be held in check by reason and evidence.

I don't have the time to take a biology class to learn this stuff nor the desire to do so. I catch as much as I can on the Science channel and that's as far as I'm willing to go. I am also very open to anything on the subject you wish to share.

If you want me to believe it I have to comprehend it.

First, there is no "belief" necessary in science. You either accept the evidence and it's implications or you do not. Unlike religion and/or God faith, science does not tell us (or even attempt to tell us) anything about truth. It provides us the best evidence possible and holds it's positions TENTATIVELY (instead of dogmatically and FIXED like sky fairy/god belief does). Luckily, the evidence for common descent (that man shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees) is overwhelming).

Thirdly, I appreciate your admitted ignorance of evolutionary biology but sadly this isn't a good reason for doubting what you simply don't know. From what it sounds like you've heard from wrong things from the wrong people. Your doubt of the subject sounds like someone who knows nothing about car engines doubting that pistons actually fire after a gasoline ignited explosion. In short, you really need to do your homework before you decide what you don't think is true b/c ignorance isn't an excuse.

Every version of evolution I have encountered says all life began in the ocean. Decided to grow legs and eventually headed for land. Is this true or false? If true then my question about the process is very legitimate.

What you've just described is NOT the subject of evolution. Evolution deals with questions regarding the diversity of life AFTER it began. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, deals with the question of life's origins (i.e. - life deriving from non-living material). But even if all of the evidence we have failed the honest answer would still be "I DON'T KNOW" not "God did it" because that is a non-answer. Attempting to describe a mystery by another bigger mystery fails. It is a logical fallacy (as noted before - the Argument from Incredulity fallacy).

Yes I have a basic idea of the theory. For me to just accept what other people say is exactly what you condemn people for on this sight. Accepting things w/o asking questions. I won't do that for religion and I won't do it for science.

Did I ever advocate that here? No, I didn't. I'm advocating that you become educated on the science. Why? Because science is DEMONSTRABLE. A "God" creator being thing (that we have no idea about and is invisible) is NOT demonstrable. So, at the very least you should be withholding judgment on the subject, admitting you don't know, and actually doing some research instead of just accepting what makes you feel comfortable.

When I say I feel my spirit, I mean I literally feel it in there. It is not an emotion. I physically feel my spirit. A gentleman doesn't talk about his balls.

So if this were a ballgame you'd be the worse ref ever.

It may come as a shock to you that I simply do not care about other people's opinions regarding what is "gentleman like" and what is not, but I don't. On this forum (and elsewhere) and care about truth and what came be demonstrated to be true (namely b/c I actually care whether or not my beliefs are true and I hold things tentatively instead of fixed, like god belief).

Now, if an invisible "spirit thing" (whatever that means) exists, but this thing actually 'acts' upon your physical body, then it's detectable by science. But when the rationalization/SPIN begins (in an attempt to save the assumption) saying, "We can't detect it because..." that is where science ends and CREDULITY begins. Again, mere feelings, self-diagnosis of those feelings, and self-imposed interpretations are not sufficient to establish that such a thing as "spirit" exists (any more than placebos demonstrate healing cancer).

Finally, the idea that a "non-physical spirit" (whatever that means) acts upon a physical 'body', of some kind, is a contradiction. You need something physical to act upon something else that is physical and all evidence points to that fact. So again, reason trumps superstition, assumption, and credulity.

Every version of evolution I have encountered says all life began in the ocean. Decided to grow legs and eventually headed for land. Is this true or false?

False.

You do, though, seem to be thoroughly acquainted with the typical strawman arguments as put forward by creationists who so favor the argument from incredulity as referenced by Median above.

X I think you should contact the Science Channel and let them know their programming is false. I remember the illustrations distinctly of the organisms growing legs and heading for land. Forgive me if I just don't take your word for that especially since you left no accurate or "true" statement to refer to.

I thought skepticism was a good thing. I wish y'all would make up your minds.

Looks to me like your trying to twist the facts of evolution to strengthen your argument, to me.

I should be well schooled in evolution by now participating on this forum with all the experts on the subject. You buy right into it because you don't want there to be a God or a Creator. I do. So yes I will question what I know to be so about Evolution. I don't have the time to take a biology class to learn this stuff nor the desire to do so. I catch as much as I can on the Science channel and that's as far as I'm willing to go. I am also very open to anything on the subject you wish to share.

While you were responding to median in the above quote, since he and I see eye to eye in most things, I feel qualified to respond too. The part I'm zeroing in on is bolded.

Whether I don't want or you do want a god is irrelevant. If there is a god, I could spend my whole life wishing otherwise and he wouldn't go away. If there isn't a god, you can spend your whole life wanting for there to be one, but he won't appear. While I can only assume that median and the other atheists here would be with me on this, I know I am an atheist because I have seen no evidence of a god, not because I don't want there to be one. So if you are thinking that you are arguing with atheists because we just don't want god to be real, then you are arguing with what you imagine us to be, rather than what we actually are. That can't end well. And it accomplishes nothing.

Quote

Every version of evolution I have encountered says all life began in the ocean. Decided to grow legs and eventually headed for land. Is this true or false? If true then my question about the process is very legitimate.

And if this is your understanding of evolution, then you are doing the same thing. Assuming you understand/know what something is and arguing based on that assumption. Evolution does not have any decision making process. And while it is quite possible, even probably, that life began in the ocean, we don't know that for sure and may never know it. We do know, even without the details, that our story is a big improvement over Eden and other creation stories, which haven't a single fact attached. And we also know that we are going to continue to learn about life and its origins as we study the subject and learn more about all those little tiny bits and pieces that make for living cells. Which is more fun to learn about if you can get the cruft out of your head. The stuff that is so wrong it is doing you no good whatsoever. Like thinking that things decided to grow legs and head for land.

So false, and your question was not legitimate.

Charlottes Web is more accurate about arachnology than you are about evolution. (And by the way, the Science Channel is more interested in selling advertising space than it is in giving you accurate information. You would do well to learn the difference between being entertained and being educated.)

I know I am an atheist because I have seen no evidence of a god, not because I don't want there to be one

Ditto. In my experience, what believers can never seem to understand, is that we are not God deniers. We simply have no evidence for God, therefore to us He doesn't exist. Live for ever? See all my friends in the afterlife? Travel the universe, find out all its secrets? Who wouldn't want that?? I want it! But imagining a god won't make it happen.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

All true, folks, but the thing I want to point out to June is that she keeps coming up with a false dichotomy.

June, there is a not a straight choice between a creator or evolution. It is not that one is right and the other wrong so that proving evolution to be false would only leave us not know - it would not prove there was a creator. The thing is that there are plenty of things for which we have the answer 'we don't know' though some of these are solved each year. The 'we don't know' answer if perfectly acceptable as an answer if it is true. One cannot take a random idea and say that it is an answer and god comes into that category.

Don't forget that thousands of years ago a god / gods were though to be responsible for everything from thunderstorms to illness yet, over the years, we have worked out the causes of vast numbers of things, leaving gods struggling for a purpose in life. Creation is only the most popular topics that theists try to use to keep a purpose in their gods. Yet, oddly, evolution could be the explanation of how a god created the vast array of plants and animals in the world today. All it needs is some evidence to link a god to the process yet all the gods we hear about are so reticent to be found out that they hide away and never show themselves.

So, June, just remember that negating something is science does not, of itself, make your claims any better. You still need positive evidence of a god. Oh, and do read the links further up the page - you can't really argue about evolution without knowing anything about it.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I was always trying to reconcile a creator with evolution. I my mind I pictured the creator somehow putting evolution into motion. This also worked with the Big Bang. There was a program on the Discovery channel showing the beginning of the universe, it was easy to picture an invisible hand flicking the comets at the earth, stirring up the tidal waves, etc... Not that I seriously thought this was happening, but it was fun to imagine.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

I know I am an atheist because I have seen no evidence of a god, not because I don't want there to be one

Ditto. In my experience, what believers can never seem to understand, is that we are not God deniers. We simply have no evidence for God, therefore to us He doesn't exist. Live for ever? See all my friends in the afterlife? Travel the universe, find out all its secrets? Who wouldn't want that?? I want it! But imagining a god won't make it happen.

Absolutely. A Proper God? One that is truly and demonstrably all powerful and all benevolent? That would be fantastic, I'd be first in the queue.

And while I'm wishing, I'll have a Unicorn as well, and a wallet that never runs out of money. Sadly, there's not a scrap of evidence for any of those things - hence I don't believe in them.

Why a step too far I was just asking a question? I am not familiar with the phrase. So it was hard to understand your point.

June, the phrase in question is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Meaning that sometimes a person might be so bent on throwing out the entirety of an idea or whatever that he won't stop to investigate it more fully, and thus discard a really useful nugget in the process.

Hope that was helpful.

Now I'm off to finish reading the rest of the thread. I just scanned it to see whether anyone had cleared that up for you and didn't notice anything offhand.

Hold on there Nelly. I am not trying to falsify evolution. I just had a question dang. I have said many times before here that I believe that it's part of God's plan.

I define God as the beginning of life. I don't see God as a person, place or thing. I see God as Power/Pure Energy. It took/takes a lot of Power to create/sustain this planet and the life on it. This planet could get vaporized by a number of things in space but yet 4.5 billion years later it still orbits the sun, which I am told by science will blow up in 5 billion years. That is because the equation does not include God. Add God to the equation and our sun may never blow up. That to me is the kind of "luck" I feel is too much. If that kind of "luck" existed I could go to Vegas and never ever lose a game of poker. To me this demonstrates a loving protector/creator.

As far as natural disasters I said many times here I believe they exist to shape and nourish the planet. I believe we were given the intelligence to build homes that are not too close and that are water/wind proof as well. I believe in a Loving Creator, not a mentally ill one.

Spirit? My spirit does not "feel" like emotions. It feels like life; w/o it I would not be alive. It starts in the center and works it's way out. It is my link to God. You can try it for your self if you want. I would not dismiss it until you do or else people might think you're closed-minded. You can find a tranquil place close your eyes, about an hour at least 30 min, try to "feel" your spirit too. Try it a few times. Something Native American or Buddhist or just silence whatever you're comfortable with. Try it or stop asking for proof!!! Y'all should love an experiment!!!

I asked a direct question; Did life begin in the ocean? I got no direct answer. Just saying. This is important to me because I was judged according to my "lack of knowledge" which appears to be accurate. So if my knowledge is correct I need not go back to school. Thanks

Thanks jynnan. I am not guilty as charged. I am freaking innocent!!!

Dante,

Kiss my grits.

Logged

LOOK DEEP INTO NATURE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BETTER...ALBERT EINSTEIN

...I asked a direct question; Did life begin in the ocean? I got no direct answer. Just saying. This is important to me because I was judged according to my "lack of knowledge" which appears to be accurate. So if my knowledge is correct I need not go back to school. Thanks...

Well, June, the fact is science is still looking for answers and we all have to wait to find out. Life must have started somewhere - the process is called abiogenesis. Have a read about it here. It is highly probable that life started in water but juts what sort of water and even at what depth is waiting for more research.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I define God as the beginning of life. I don't see God as a person, place or thing. I see God as Power/Pure Energy. It took/takes a lot of Power to create/sustain this planet and the life on it.

How did god attain/become this power? Its OK to say you don't know.

Quote

This planet could get vaporized by a number of things in space but yet 4.5 billion years later it still orbits the sun, which I am told by science will blow up in 5 billion years.

While Earth has obviously not been "vaporized" by any interstellar objects, the fact is that our fair planet has experienced many cataclysmic events. Among these was an asteroid impact approximately 65 mil. years ago that most likely caused the extinction of the dinosaurs (along with 90%+ of all other living things), and another as recently as 1908 that decimated over 800 sq. miles of land in Russia. Apparently, god doesn't concern himself with "non-vaporizing" impacts. Why do you suppose that is?

Quote

That is because the equation does not include God. Add God to the equation and our sun may never blow up. That to me is the kind of "luck" I feel is too much. If that kind of "luck" existed I could go to Vegas and never ever lose a game of poker. To me this demonstrates a loving protector/creator.

What you are saying is that because an event that science says should not happen until 5 billion more years have passed has not happened that this is somehow evidence for god. Please explain your logic.

Quote

As far as natural disasters I said many times here I believe they exist to shape and nourish the planet. I believe we were given the intelligence to build homes that are not too close and that are water/wind proof as well. I believe in a Loving Creator, not a mentally ill one.

Do you think a god with enough power to create our universe could come up with any other way besides deadly natural disasters to shape and nourish our planet? Please explain your answer.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

So if life began from a purely natural process, as one of the inevitable course of the universes properties (i.e. - the universe just is this way) you somehow call that God? No...just no. Putting the label 'G-d' on nature is absurd b/c that term is loaded with theological baggage. Nature is nature. There is no need to call it a deity name. Furthermore, nature doesn't tell us how it got here until we investigate, and just making up stuff (or accepting what you've heard from others) is just lazy.

I don't see God as a person, place or thing. I see God as Power/Pure Energy.

This is a direct contradiction (illogical). You are using the term "God" in an attempt to refer to something but then turning right around and saying that you aren't trying to refer to anything (all the while mentioning "Power/Pure Energy", which is something). So again, you've just contradicted yourself and ought to stop using these bad arguments.

You've been around here long enough to know that irrational/illogical arguments don't fly here (nor should they fly anywhere).

But what you have been doing so far with your arguments is called cherry-picking (aka confirmation bias). You are singling out the evidence that you think supports your position while completely ignoring contrary evidence or argument. This method is wrong too and it is one of the very pinnacle reasons why we have independent scientific investigation (to avoid confirmation bias).

This planet could get vaporized by a number of things in space but yet 4.5 billion years later it still orbits the sun, which I am told by science will blow up in 5 billion years. That is because the equation does not include God. Add God to the equation and our sun may never blow up.

Sure, you can add the ambiguous and incredibly vague term "God" as an explanation for just about anything you don't understand. But that is called The God of the Gaps Fallacy(putting "God" in wherever you lack knowledge - which solves nothing and explains nothing). For being around this forum so long you sure do use a lot of logical fallacies. You really should stop.

There are lots of things that 'could' happen to the universe at anytime. So what. Your ignorance of basic science is not a valid excuse for trying to explain what you don't personally understand with other things which you don't personally understand. Trying to explain mysteries by other bigger mysteries is absurd. Do you know what that's called?

Here you are just demonstrating your ignorance of what it means to demonstrate something. Demonstrating a specific phenomena does not include the term "to me". Demonstrations are not just about opinions. So, like most superstitious people, you are mixing opinion with fact. They are not the same thing.

As far as natural disasters I said many times here I believe they exist to shape and nourish the planet. I believe we were given the intelligence to build homes that are not too close and that are water/wind proof as well. I believe in a Loving Creator, not a mentally ill one.

Spirit? My spirit does not "feel" like emotions. It feels like life; w/o it I would not be alive. It starts in the center and works it's way out. It is my link to God.

These are more arguments from ignorance. You are doing a self-diagnosis (aka - personal non-demonstrable interpretation) and then putting labels on what you can't demonstrate and don't understand. Again, just because you "feel" something doesn't tell us anything as to whether or not your personal interpretation of that feeling is accurate, valid, or correct. For that you need demonstration and valid argument. But so far, all you've given are invalid (fallacious) arguments. In the science realm your view would be considered unsubstantiated, and (rightfully so) not taken seriously.

You can try it for your self if you want. I would not dismiss it until you do or else people might think you're closed-minded. You can find a tranquil place close your eyes, about an hour at least 30 min, try to "feel" your spirit too. Try it a few times.

Been there, done that. Sorry, no sale. What you are missing is that when you first did this trick on yourself you already wanted to believe it. You were predisposed to confirmation bias (i.e. - you were practicing credulity and gullibility - and those are not good things b/c they aren't reliable for separating fact from fiction). I'm sorry to have to say this, but it's true. What you did was quite literally the same thing that fundamentalist Christians do (and Mormons and Muslims, etc, etc, etc). Someone comes to your door, gives you a 'holy' book, tells you to "pray to God and ask him if it's true" - and instead of questioning the very foundation of their assumption (i.e - that there is a god you can pray to who created this book) you justaccept their assumption and pray (which then leads to confirmation bias). It's called the fallacy of Circular Reasoning and it fails miserably.

I'm sorry Junebug (I do like that name), but none of these arguments are new or good.

According to Einstein's famous equation, matter and energy are one. So the whole of the universe could be see as pure energy. So, June sees the whole of the universe as god and we are all parts of this god. Magnificent! I will, however, leave the shortened name ot others and carry on calling it 'the Universe'.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

pure power/ energy only exists in sci-fi and comic books. Power and energy are abstraction, mathematical ideas created to make some predictions easier. Without getting too mathy, energy is a force (also an abstraction) applied over a distance. Power is the rate at which energy is used. They are not a substance. Here is a picture of energy:

"But I only see a horse pulling a plow?"Exactly. There is no glowing, pulsating ball of light and electricity. Energy is what we call the effort of the horse used in pulling the plow. The faster the horse moves, the greater the rate it delivers energy. This is exactly where the term "horse power" comes from. 1 hp = 550 ftlbs/ sec. That is, moving 550 lbs one foot in one second. (Or 1 lb 550ft in 1 sec, or some combination thereof).

I would estimate that you getting your buns off the couch after three hours of Hee Haw would expend about 1/4 hp. Still no glowing ball of light, crackling with electricity.

I define God as the beginning of life. I don't see God as a person, place or thing. I see God as Power/Pure Energy. It took/takes a lot of Power to create/sustain this planet and the life on it. This planet could get vaporized by a number of things in space but yet 4.5 billion years later it still orbits the sun,

Actually, Sol is the source of the energy that sustains life on Earth, through the process of stellar fusion. We don't need to have sentient energy (ala Star Trek Organians) doing it instead.

Quote from: junebug72

which I am told by science will blow up in 5 billion years.

Actually, Sol is too small to go nova. It will probably become a red giant, though.

Quote from: junebug72

That is because the equation does not include God. Add God to the equation and our sun may never blow up.

Why would you want to whistle in the dark over something that's not going to happen for billions of years? More than likely there won't be any humans left by then, seeing as that's around hundred thousand times as long as human civilization in its entirety has existed and more than ten thousand times as long as the entire human species has existed. And if there are, they'll almost certainly have either moved on to other, younger planets, or have figured out a way to save Earth from being burned to a cinder by Sol's eventual expansion.

Quote from: junebug72

That to me is the kind of "luck" I feel is too much. If that kind of "luck" existed I could go to Vegas and never ever lose a game of poker. To me this demonstrates a loving protector/creator.

Why would it demonstrate a protector/creator being to begin with? I mean, why would adding sentient energy to the equation keep Sol from expanding?

Quote from: junebug72

As far as natural disasters I said many times here I believe they exist to shape and nourish the planet. I believe we were given the intelligence to build homes that are not too close and that are water/wind proof as well. I believe in a Loving Creator, not a mentally ill one.

Natural disasters exist because of the very same things that make life possible on this planet. And people are not all that good at making disaster-proof residences/buildings, based on the number of homes that get burned down or flooded each year worldwide, not to mention destroyed in an earthquake or tsunami or hurricane or tornado.

Quote from: junebug72

Spirit? My spirit does not "feel" like emotions. It feels like life; w/o it I would not be alive. It starts in the center and works it's way out. It is my link to God. You can try it for your self if you want. I would not dismiss it until you do or else people might think you're closed-minded. You can find a tranquil place close your eyes, about an hour at least 30 min, try to "feel" your spirit too. Try it a few times. Something Native American or Buddhist or just silence whatever you're comfortable with. Try it or stop asking for proof!!! Y'all should love an experiment!!!

You know, I've meditated too. What you're feeling is not some special kind of energy working its way out, it's simply the rhythms of your own body. It's the feeling of oxygen being metabolized all through the body and producing ATP; it's the feeling of our heart pumping blood which flows through our veins and arteries; it's the feeling of our nerves transmitting signals to each other. As you said, your 'spirit' is your life. Or more accurately, what you think of as your spirit is simply the feeling of being alive.

Why complicate the issue by giving it fancy names, or by imagining that it's a link to some great sentient spirit Source?

Why doesn't the loving protector get busy with the loving and protecting? I mean in a general, universal unbiased way. Because some folks get a lot of loving and protecting while others get almost none. People in Europe and North America get a lot more loving and protecting than people in most of South America, Africa and Asia. And it doesn't matter what they believe. Wonder why that is?

As for natural disasters, about that "nourishing and shaping the planet". It turns out that human beings are always going to live in the path of natural disasters, as if the loving creator planned it that way. Why else would the places that have the best soil, most water and other elements for human life also have the worst natural disasters?

And the disasters are not equally shared--but they happen in very scientifically predictable patterns. The Pacific Rim countries, like Japan and Indonesia, get way more than their fair share of earthquakes and volcanoes. Bangladesh gets more floods than most any other country. Tornadoes are largely limited to the southern and central US. Hurricanes in the Caribbean and US east coast. Blizzards and droughts in the centers of large continents. And so forth.

Deserts are very safe from earthquakes, floods, blizzards, volcanoes, tsunamis, forest fires. But deserts have too little water to sustain large populations. So people are going to be heavily concentrated in the places that have water, like floodplains, volcanic mountain valleys, coastal regions, river deltas and so forth.

We should not have to build multi-million dollar reinforced fireproof bunkers raised up on pylons sunk 20 feet into bedrock, just to live on the planet that was supposedly made especially for us. And even if we could afford to do that for everyone of 7 billion folks on earth, there would still be millions of animals and plants destroyed.

We would need to create a protective biosphere the size of the earth-- hey, there's an idea, how about an earth without all those disasters? You would think that a loving creator would just make a planet without the disasters. Or at least put the disasters (that nourish and shape the planet) where the populations were sparse, like at the poles, rather then in the most highly populated regions so a bunch of people have to die needlessly every year.....

Just to reply to this awful statement that "God is more likely than luck"...how do you know!?

When people talk about things being "more likely" than other things, they are discussing the subject of statistics. Now, in order to determine whether or not one event is "more likely" than another you need data points (aka - the kind you can put into an Excel spreadsheet and can use for calculations). But you don't have that! All you have is one universe, and no apparent "God" thing. Sure, you can just make up any fictitious answer you want saying, "My X-thing is more likely" but so what! Any of us can just makeup any convenient intellectually lazy answer we want in order to avoid doing our homework but that doesn't tell us anything about what is actually the case.

Claiming you know what is more likely assumes that you have done your research and that you have the data set to do the math (i.e. - multiple universes and/or gods creating them from which to calculate probability) in order to determine which answer is more probable. It also assumes that you have provided a cogent (understandable and rational) definition of the term "God", which you have not. So let's not pretend for a second that this alleged thing you call "God" is more likely than any phenomena of scientific inquiry. That is just another argument from ignorance. It's basically an admission that you don't really care if your beliefs are actually true. You've accepted this idea about "God" (which someone else likely told you about, and got you to accept a long time ago) and you're going with that regardless of which way the evidence goes. Well, guess what? That means you don't care about truth! You just want to feel comfortable in your belief. Unfortunately, that is the difference between you and most of us here. We do care about truth, and we are willing to sacrifice any cherished dogmas in order to discover it.

That means you don't care about truth! You just want to feel comfortable in your belief. Unfortunately, that is the difference between you and most of us here. We do care about truth, and we are willing to sacrifice any cherished dogmas in order to discover it.

I do not think that Junebug does not care about the truth. I think she expresses her experience of the truth in ways that are not always comprehensible to people who only care about what they can see in facts and figures and in logic. Her education in science appears to have come largely from the science channel, the internet and this forum, not from attending college. Her tone is folksy. I don't understand why so many posters find it necessary to ridicule every sentence she writes. It is not so difficult to respond to a question and correct inaccuracies without sarcasm. Why must everyone who admits to feelings and spirituality be scorned?

I don't concur. I think she cares more about what feels all warm & fuzzy, and what supports her presuppositions.

Quote

I think she expresses her experience of the truth in ways that are not always comprehensible to people who only care about what they can see in facts and figures and in logic.

"Her experience" of the truth? What on earth does that mean?

Quote

Her education in science appears to have come largely from the science channel, the internet and this forum, not from attending college.

And this deserves heaps of respect why?

Quote

Her tone is folksy.

Her tone to me is both delusional and mule-headed, wishing to cling to any messed up thing that supports her fantasy that the universe revolves around homo sapiens.

Quote

I don't understand why so many posters find it necessary to ridicule every sentence she writes.

So many? Name one. She's been coddled and provided with more respect than anybody deserves given the semi-trailer loads of nonsense that she deliveres here on a daily basis,

Quote

It is not so difficult to respond to a question and correct inaccuracies without sarcasm.

I can't know or speak to what other posts that you're referring to, but I wasn't being sarcastic.

Quote

Why must everyone who admits to feelings and spirituality be scorned?

I admit to feelings and a sense of awe, but JB does not just do that; she makes continuous wild, baseless, supernatural assertions without a shred of evidence or reason. This does not deserve respect; it deserves mockery, but we're doing the best we can, and I think we deserve a ribbon for the patience employed.

2. Whether or not someone "deserves" to be mocked has entirely to do with their actions

Btw, there is a big difference between having little tolerance for irrational nonsense and mocking (especially when someone refuses to admit their errors and/or discontinuing using bad arguments). For many of us, it's upsetting when someone brings forth irrational/fallacious arguments, has them pointed out, and then continues to use them over and over.

I have attempted to maintain a very civil tone in this forum, and excepting a handful of posts here and there (particularly several exchanges with Wayne H.), I feel I have done quite well in this regard. I believe I have been at least as respectful and courteous with JB as any atheist here, not to mention I have yet to dole out my first -1 karma, be it to June or anyone else.

There doesn't seem to be much reward for such relative civility, however. I find that JB responds to my posts (even those containing direct, specific questions to her) with far less frequency and elaboration than she does to posts from the more provocative posters.

I have no plans to change my approach at present, but it certainly seems there is some truth in the old adages nice guys finish last and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".